>Yeah, right. I've been trying to get a quire of the Buxton for a while,
>but progress is, let's say, slow.... The problem I see at this point is
>getting >the Brits to part with some.
brings us back to a suggestion first raised by Jeff Stanford in his post of
27-8-95, which did not at the time seem to get any reponse from the List:-
>Stephen and I have discussed the idea of having a paper made just for Gum
>printers which would include the extra size so that we could skip that
>process. To commission a paper mill to produce such a paper would mean an
>order of at least 500 sheets possibly 1000. But if there are enough of us
>then it might be possible. The standard 56 cm x 76 cm would be most practical.
>
>Anyone interested ?
I commissioned a making of one ream (500 Imperial sheets) of Buxton paper
(through John Purcell - see my other post) for iron-based printing
processes. At the time it seemed to cost an arm and a leg, but I now have
enough for my needs into the forseeable future - assuming even moderate
longevity! There was a second making -again the minimum of one ream-
largely because 'Buxton' was also found to work well in ink-jet printers.
And that's all that's ever been made...so far. Now Judy has demonstrated
that it has some value for gum bichromate printing. I am sure the
papermaker, who put a lot of work into developing it, could be commissioned
to do another making. I do not want to be seen as pushing this particular
paper - after all, it may not suit your taste or purposes or working
methods - but rather, I'm trying to promote the principle that we, as
alternative process workers, are not entirely beholden to the products of
the giant multinational companies, and we should be prepared to support the
'cottage industries' and the individual craftspeople who are prepared to
meet our very specific, low volume, needs. Even if it costs.
Thanks to Judy for reporting her findings.
Mike